Comments for Daily Dose of Logichttps://theredsnifit.wordpress.com
Killing conspiracy theories faster than you can say "Vodka".Wed, 01 Dec 2010 22:04:19 +0000hourly1http://wordpress.com/Comment on Chemtrails by Vladimer K.https://theredsnifit.wordpress.com/2010/11/27/chemtrails/#comment-20
Wed, 01 Dec 2010 22:04:19 +0000http://theredsnifit.wordpress.com/?p=18#comment-20I have a degree in astrophysics and climatology, thank you.
]]>Comment on Chemtrails by Vladimer K.https://theredsnifit.wordpress.com/2010/11/27/chemtrails/#comment-19
Wed, 01 Dec 2010 22:02:23 +0000http://theredsnifit.wordpress.com/?p=18#comment-19Yes, I do have to approve comments (not replies) and it’ll be that way until I figure out how to undo that option.

The post that disappeared had been put in my spam folder by WordPress. It was not my fault.

]]>Comment on Chemtrails by Vladimer K.https://theredsnifit.wordpress.com/2010/11/27/chemtrails/#comment-18
Wed, 01 Dec 2010 22:00:32 +0000http://theredsnifit.wordpress.com/?p=18#comment-18Are you talking about Rozzr? If so, here’s an example of what I ‘harassed’ her with:

You’re panicking over anything with the prefix “fluo-“. This is irrational. Earlier I suggested you read a *peer-reviewed* book by an MD and Ph.D named Kauffman. I hope you read his book, because most of what you’ve said is incorrect:

1. You state that you have the healthy kind of fluoride, not sodium fluoride. But you *do* have sodium fluoride. You’re drinking the same thing that comes from an aluminum plant.

2. You have no evidence that small doses of fluoride is capable of pacifying anyone.

3. Your Prozac source has no idea what it’s talking about. For starters, it states early on that fluorine is found in nature and fluoride is not. This is untrue, since fluorine automatically reacts with anything near it, creating a fluoride. Second, it states that Prozac contains sodium fluoride. This is untrue. The formula for Prozac is (C17)(H18)(F3)(NO) [parentheses added to make it readable in my current font without parentheses it reads C17H18F3NO]. Sodium fluoride is NaF, the Na being sodium. If Prozac contains sodium fluoride, then somebody had better tell
(C17)(H18)(F3)(NO) that there’s an Na floating around in it.

4. You have no evidence that people are walking around in a semi-trance state. Even if you did, you wouldn’t be able to prove it’s because of fluoride.

5. Filtering won’t work. To get the fluoride out of your drinking water, you’ll need a reverse osmosis machine.

6. The only danger related to Teflon is that if you heat it to 500+ degrees F, then it can release chemicals into the air. Even if it did disintegrate into your food, it would do so at such a slow rate as to be completely harmless.

7. Any amount of fluoride in juice from concentrate and similar food items is so small as to not be detected. If there’s one thing that can’t be denied, it’s that if something is so small as to not be detected, it’s not dangerous.

7. As stated above, fluorine does not occur naturally. Just because it’s an element doesn’t mean it exists in nature.

8. Tea is known for its ability to accumulate chemicals. This means that when grown in areas with a high concentration of natural fluoride, a lot of it gets absorbed. Your statement that it’s from being watered is wrong, considering how I doubt that drinking water is used to water plants.

Even this was comparatively impolite compared to earlier statements; she had recently accused me of being a sociopath who wanted to destroy the world.

]]>Comment on Chemtrails by Vladimer K.https://theredsnifit.wordpress.com/2010/11/27/chemtrails/#comment-17
Wed, 01 Dec 2010 21:54:57 +0000http://theredsnifit.wordpress.com/?p=18#comment-17You might want to define what “APU” stands for instead of assuming everyone knows. Obviously, the only thing being turned on and off is the aerosol canisters from which the chemtrails are being sprayed
APU stands for Auxiliary Power Unit. They’re found on most large aircraft, and can be used to power parts such as the flaps in the event of a hydraulics failure. In the US, planes that fly 43,000 feet up must have flight-startable APUs.
Here’s a picture:

I didn’t use either the terms minuscule amounts” or “massive amounts.” You did. These are nano-particulates; i.e. sub-microscopic particles. They would have no effect whatever on the performance of the engines. However, I’m not the one who stated chemtrails are coming from jet fuel exhaust, in the first place; you did. I said they come from pressurized aerosol canisters aboard the plane.
For these nano-particles to have any affect, they’d have to be dropped in fairly large amounts.
And if these are coming from aerosol canisters, where are your photos? Until you can prove the existance of such canisters, you’re taking wild guesses.

Those contrails are coming from the slats, which are used during takeoff and landing.

Neither are these:

That first one shows vortices from the tail.
The second one shows a hydraulic actuator cover. The flaps on most large aircraft are hydraulic powered, and have fairly large hydraulic rams to drive them. There is no good way to mount these in the wings and get the flap movement they want. The solution is to mount the mechanisms outside of the wing. The problem with that is aerodynamics. You don’t want big odd shaped things hanging out in the airflow. The easy solution is to build covers for them.

Then there is this photo of the interior of a chemtrail plane, showing the canisters:

By the way, there are thousands of chemtrail photos that make it abundantly clear that these planes are not flying any FAA-approved routes. Here are few examples:

I see you’ve completely disregarded Air Force jets. Hell, those could have been left by helicopters if it was cold enough.

No, it doesn’t. It’s being dispersed from the canisters under high pressure. If you’ve ever observed any aerosol spray, you can sometimes see nothing coming out near the nozzle, but, the farther the content is from the nozzle, the more it slows down and coalesces. So what?
That’d be quite a lot of pressure, seeing as there’s a 20 foot difference between the “canisters” and the trail. In addition, barium would STILL burn green right next to the engines.

Since chemtrails are not coming from jet exhaust, but from compressed aerosol tanks, there is no heat applied to the barium particles, hence, there is no green coloration.
Barium will either burn or oxidize. This means that a) it should be green, or b) it should be a gas.

I don’t know where you are getting the idea anything about the video was “incorrect.” There is nothing “natural” about barium in the atmosphere.
The video was incorrect. There is no way you can have your conversions off by a factor of 100 and call it accurate.
From Jeff Ferrel, the video’s reporter:Yes, I did make corrections to my first report, which originally aired almost 2-years ago now… after quickly realizing my very embarrassing mistake. I was not happy with myself. Unfortunately, the first version of my report got out to the internet before I could make the correction(s), and the wrong version is shown repeatedly.
…
My feeling is, and maybe you’d agree, that if such aerosol mixes were created and loaded into jets with either a separate/independent dispersal method other than the exhaust, or actually in the fuel itself… somewhere, somehow, you’d expect someone to talk. I have not heard that yet.
…
I also interviewed the scientist who originally patented what some believe was a precursor to so-called chemtrail technology. He’s a very kind, helpful man who could not have been more helpful. He says he knows nothing about any such conspiracy.
And they tested a bowl of water that had been left in rural Arkansas for an entire month. Obviously, there was quite a bit of dust and dirt, which contained barium.

Only my own eyewitness observations, over a period of three years (in the case of chemtrails; over a lifetime, in the case of contrails), combined with those of hundreds of millions of people worldwide, as well as much reading, study and research over more than three years. And what proof to do YOU have of anything you are saying?
Oh, I only have peer-reviewed literature, scientists, the military, etc etc. I suppose your blogs trump this?
In reality, the only way that your observations can be accurate is if you flew into a contrail and tested it, which I strongly doubt.

No, they are not. Contrails are man-made, by jet plane exhaust, and they do not persist. They are not even cloud-like. Chemtrails, on the other hand are what you are seeing persisting in the sky as so-called “cirrus clouds.” These are not clouds at all, but are chemtrails that have been blown by the wind.
For which you have no proof.

I’ve already presented evidence that contrails do not persist and this is observable in video footage comparing chemtrails and contrails in the same air space:

No, whether or not contrails “can make a shadow” has nothing to do with proving the existence of chemtrails, and there is abundant proof of their existence. Try going stepping away from your computer and taking a walk outside and look up.
And I’ve demonstrated that your evidence isn’t any good.

Walk outside and look at the sky. See those contrails? Why do you think they’re chemtrails? Have you seen a single study that says so? Of course not; you’re using chemtrails as proof of chemtrails. In an equation, it’d look like this:
y+2=y
You cannot solve that equation, because y (chemtrails) are on both sides. The only way to solve it is to get rid of y;
2=/=0
There’s no solution. You are unable to verify chemtrails existence without using chemtrails; the problem is that they aren’t verifiable.

]]>Comment on Chemtrails by Miriam NIxon BASchttps://theredsnifit.wordpress.com/2010/11/27/chemtrails/#comment-16
Wed, 01 Dec 2010 21:32:46 +0000http://theredsnifit.wordpress.com/?p=18#comment-16Perhaps you would like to quantify your qualifications and exact knowledge of the subjects you seem so fond of knocking. Or are you simply a very bored young man who has nothing else in his life?

At least I have a degree and a great deal of experience. What have you please?

M J Nixon BASc

]]>Comment on Chemtrails by Garyhttps://theredsnifit.wordpress.com/2010/11/27/chemtrails/#comment-15
Wed, 01 Dec 2010 21:31:30 +0000http://theredsnifit.wordpress.com/?p=18#comment-15By the way, you are lying about having to “approve all comments.” I have a WordPress account, myself and know very well how it works. Besides, my first three posts here posted without any delay at all, as they normally will tend to do unless you have selected to hold comments for authorization.
]]>Comment on Chemtrails by Garyhttps://theredsnifit.wordpress.com/2010/11/27/chemtrails/#comment-14
Wed, 01 Dec 2010 21:26:30 +0000http://theredsnifit.wordpress.com/?p=18#comment-14My mistake, then, however, I happen to know you have deliberately stalked a friend of mine to other sites besides your own blog, and have besmirched her character and repeatedly harassed her. Given this behavior of yours, I don’t think my accusation is either “bizarre” or out of line.
]]>Comment on Chemtrails by Vladimer K.https://theredsnifit.wordpress.com/2010/11/27/chemtrails/#comment-13
Wed, 01 Dec 2010 20:32:11 +0000http://theredsnifit.wordpress.com/?p=18#comment-13Your previous posting simply hadn’t been approved yet. Try waiting before you make bizzare accusations.

From your source:Condensation trails, or contrails, generated from high-altitude aircraft exhaust may affect climate because they can persist for many hours
Well, that flies in the face of everything you said in your previous post. And that was just the first sentence of the introduction; did you read that study at all?

]]>Comment on Hello world! by Vladimer K.https://theredsnifit.wordpress.com/2010/11/25/hello-world/#comment-12
Wed, 01 Dec 2010 20:27:48 +0000http://theredsnifit.wordpress.com/?p=1#comment-12What you are describing here are indeed what are now known as chemtrails. Contrails on the other hand are formed when the aircraft reaches around 30 thousand feet and consist of simple vapour that totally evaporates in approximately 1 – 2 minutes. Chemtrails can bee seen for many hours after the event. You have only to look at steam from a kettle and see how quickly it dissipates
Can you show me a single peer-reviewed article or scientific study that supports this?
I can tell right now you’re either lying or not very intelligent. Steam from a kettle is generally not subjected to -40 degrees air temperature and high humidity (otherwise it would persist).

They contain something that is known as chaff or window
Chaff (originally called Window, or Duppel) is a radar countermeasure in which strips of aluminum are released from planes, warships, or ICBMs in order to scramble radar. The aluminum is easy to spot once it reaches the ground, and has been used since World War II.

I suggest you stop blatantly lying about your credentials and actually back up your claims with real scientific studies.

]]>Comment on Chemtrails by Vladimer K.https://theredsnifit.wordpress.com/2010/11/27/chemtrails/#comment-11
Wed, 01 Dec 2010 20:15:57 +0000http://theredsnifit.wordpress.com/?p=18#comment-11I’m new here, and by default I’m required to approve all comments. Oviously, you left yours sometime between when I fell asleep and now.
]]>